No abstract

The demand for and availability of civil justice procedures for small claims can neither be disentangled nor extricated from the health of the economic climate of the relevant country concerned. In this article, it is argued that despite not being a developed country, Ghana was not completely insulated from the hardships or implementation of austerity measures that were triggered by the global economic meltdown. The inevitability of behavioural changes on the part of the Government of Ghana as lawmaker and provider of the machinery for civil justice on the one hand and small claims litigants as users of the civil procedure on the other hand are also explored in the article. After properly situating the exploration in the relevant economic context, the article makes recommendations regarding how to minimise the impact of the austerity measures on small claims litigants.

No abstract

The Common law has evolved in leaps and bounds since the Normans Conquest of 1066. Certain areas of private law including the tort of negligence have developed into settled doctrines well known and generally followed in many common law jurisdictions. Vicarious liability is one of such well-developed doctrines with clear prerequisites for its deployment. The Supreme Court of Ghana is also required to follow the doctrine of vicarious liability unless there is a clear reason for a departure. The apex Court is mandated to justify any departure from its previous decisions with sound judicial analysis of the precedents vis-à-vis the case under consideration. In the case under review, the Supreme Court obviously ignored the established rules for the application of the doctrine of vicarious liability. The Court equally failed to justify the need for such a monumental departure from the tenets of the doctrine. The Supreme Court of Ghana invoked the doctrine of vicarious liability when the most basic of requirements for its applicability- such as the existence of an employment relationship or its analogous relationship between the tortfeasor and the Defendant-had not been established on the facts before the Court. The burden of this paper is to demonstrate that the Court erred when it failed to follow well-established principles for holding the defendant vicariously liable for a tort or breach of statutory duty by the tortfeasor. The paper expresses grave concern that unless the Supreme Court’s decision is departed from by the Court there is going to be a monumental confusion in Ghana’s Legal System as all other courts are bound to follow decisions of the Supreme Court.

Deployment of illegality or public policy to render unenforceable is one area of the common law which developed early to contain untrammelled party autonomy or freedom of contract. Traditionally, contracts that advance immoral purpose, undermine integrity in public office or governance as well as ousting jurisdiction of the courts are peremptorily deemed contrary to public policy and consequently unenforceable. In this paper I argue that the imposition of general obligation on all organs of government and private bodies and individuals to observe fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution makes it imperative for the common law concept of public policy to be expanded to encapsulate non-compliance with fundamental freedoms and human rights as a ground for rendering contract unenforceable.